Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the German Shepherd Dog Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

05-06-2014 10:51 PM

huntergreen

i remember our family dogs doing well on supermarket dog foods while living nice long lives. i still think the best food for a dog is the one they do well with.

05-06-2014 10:13 PM

Susan_GSD_mom

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

Yes, it seems like a perfectly good idea for them to produce food that dogs will get sick on and grow up unhealthy on for the sake of short term profits. That should keep their market share right on point and shareholders happy when people just stop buying their products completely.

I never said these food are good or not, I merely suggest looking into it more. You say "byproducts" can be road kill...clearly you have never seen specifications of what they require from their meat suppliers. Surprise, surprise, I have friends who have run corporate audits and thus HAVE seen the specs and how the plants run.

You talk about knowing corn is bad, please post one scientifically proven study by a reputable lab or university that is definitive on the topic. Is it cheap? Yes. Does it help companies keep costs down and ultimately keep prices costs lower for the consumer? Yup. If you want to spend more, that's perfectly fine, but there's no solid research that shows corn is harmful.

I have not fed Proplan ever since she got past her digestive issues...but you know what? The year she was on that and the year she was on Orijen/Acana, there were no noticable differences in fur, energy levels, or muscle tone. Go figure.

Good luck with your food choice.

Ethoxyquin is a known carcinogen, look it up. By-products can (and usually do) contain ethoxyquin, used as a preservative; they have to use it because of the sordid sources for the by-products and the length of time before they actually get to the final producer. Since the by-products are purchased by the dog-food manufacturer already preserved with ethoxyquin, it doesn't have to be listed in the dog food ingredients. This is all easily researched, look it up. The 'meat by-products' can even contain the carcasses of dogs and cats euthanized by kill shelters, whatever the rendering plants can get their hands on. These are the reasons most of us abhor 'meat by-products' and wouldn't feed them to our worst enemy's dog.

"How Ethoxyquin Can ‘Sneak” Its Way into Dog Food
Although ethoxyquin can be directly added to a dog food at the time of manufacture, this is only rarely the case. That’s because it can also be added indirectly to any recipe as a consequence of using certain poultry or fish meals that already contain the chemical at the time they are procured. And so even though it may not be listed on the label it can still be present in virtually any dog food.
The Bottom Line
For healthy pets, a trace amount of ethoxyquin is probably safe. However, unlike most humans who tend to vary their diets with nearly every meal, dogs typically eat the same food repeatedly. So, any potentially toxic substance present in a food — even if only in trace amounts — and fed every meal, every day, year after year — is a different matter. It’s that cumulative exposure that tends to keep us up at night. The effect of consuming any synthetic preservative like ethoxyquin relentlessly can be worrisome — even if it’s only remotely suspected of causing health issues. And especially when there are natural preservatives available to replace it."

Susan

05-06-2014 08:29 PM

Pax8

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

Good luck with your food choice.

Yup, planning on it.

05-06-2014 08:15 PM

s14roller

Yes, it seems like a perfectly good idea for them to produce food that dogs will get sick on and grow up unhealthy on for the sake of short term profits. That should keep their market share right on point and shareholders happy when people just stop buying their products completely.

I never said these food are good or not, I merely suggest looking into it more. You say "byproducts" can be road kill...clearly you have never seen specifications of what they require from their meat suppliers. Surprise, surprise, I have friends who have run corporate audits and thus HAVE seen the specs and how the plants run.

You talk about knowing corn is bad, please post one scientifically proven study by a reputable lab or university that is definitive on the topic. Is it cheap? Yes. Does it help companies keep costs down and ultimately keep prices costs lower for the consumer? Yup. If you want to spend more, that's perfectly fine, but there's no solid research that shows corn is harmful.

I have not fed Proplan ever since she got past her digestive issues...but you know what? The year she was on that and the year she was on Orijen/Acana, there were no noticable differences in fur, energy levels, or muscle tone. Go figure.

Good luck with your food choice.

05-06-2014 06:12 PM

Pax8

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

Your post is a little ironic when you talk about human concerns compared to dog concerns. I say this because we buy dog food thinking the same ingredients in there that work best for us, should work best for dogs, and that’s not the case. If it was up to the dogs to pick food, I think it would be very different…by nature they would go for byproducts instead of chicken breasts, etc.

Really? I feel like dogs would probably go for whatever looked/smelled/tasted like meat. So they would probably eat both a by-product and a chicken breast. The problem comes when we consider what each one is made of. Chicken is chicken breast. Usually with some hormones and such because that's how livestock is mainly raised in this day and age, but still chicken. By-product, by AAFCO's definition can be pretty much any meat. Chicken, beef, pork, roadkill etc. I do not like that by-product gives you no idea of what the meat actually is. If I am feeding my dog a food, I want to know what meat is in it and where it comes from. And a company using by-product in their food almost certainly doesn't know what is in it because by-product is normally bought pre-made from a supplier. My dog would probably eat both, but I can choose to give him the healthier option where I actually know what meat I am giving him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

I admit I am the same and base a lot my behavior on what I perceive is true based on marketing…but it’s one thing to understand that and still prefer one product over another, versus blindly following it without any science based data. In the gym we call it “bro science” … I haven’t yet found the term to use for these situations.

Thanks for assuming that I just blindly following the prettiest packaging. I don't talk about dog food because I've been loaded up with "bro science". As unbelievable as it is, I'm competent enough to draw conclusions from scientific literature and my own experiences and make informed judgments about dog food ingredients. I don't dislike Purina's food because it doesn't have the prettiest prom dress. I dislike it because it uses things like whole grain wheat, whole grain corn, and the synthetic vitamin K, which has been linked to liver toxicity and is not even needed in their food. Yet they put it in anyways.

The company also refuses to answer back about the presence of ethoxyquin in their fish meal. Hopefully you've done enough research that I don't have to waste my time pulling up information on how toxic ethoxyquin is to dogs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

The one big thing that many people miss is companies like P&G, Mars, Purina, or whatever big name company you think of, has a legacy of their brand name to consider. They also typically have the R&D budget to properly do formulations and QA testing to assure their good name doesn’t get spoiled and they go from selling millions to zero because of trust. BTW – the Proplan company you don’t trust happened to also be the company that invested 14 years in a study involving scientists, PhDs, and UPenn Vet science professors to get data behind the life span differences between lean and overweight dogs. My guess is, that wasn’t cheap.

That's great for them. It's great that vets have concrete proof to give to people who can't resist shoving that next bag of bacon strips down their engorged dog's throat. But that doesn't exactly impress me. Most people with half a brain can probably connect the fact that being overweight usually leads to health problems and a lowered lifespan. By the way, my uncle's lab lived to sixteen by NOT eating the corn and chemical riddled slop that Purina sells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

Do you remember your parent’s dogs or perhaps your grandparent’s dog that would live to 15 years old without issues while eating “bad” food? Have you looked up data on how long dogs lived in the last few decades compared to the recent ones?

Like I said, I fall for the same hype…I feed grain free, have spent years on Orijin/Acana foods, but I also remember the time Proplan Sensitive Skin & Stomach basically saved my pup when she would have liquid runs for months on all the other foods I fed her.

I remember my parent's rottweilers eating Purina and dying slow agonizing deaths due to various cancers, organ failures, and toxic buildups in their livers and kidneys, finally shutting down at eight and nine years old. Meanwhile, my raw fed ranch dogs lived to healthy old ages and usually died of accidents or natural causes like getting hit by a car or just living to fourteen or fifteen years old and finally passing away in their sleep. If you really want to argue this, you should probably do a bit more research and stop relying on your "bro science".

05-06-2014 05:33 PM

I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO

Quote:

Originally Posted by s14roller

Your post is a little ironic when you talk about human concerns compared to dog concerns. I say this because we buy dog food thinking the same ingredients in there that work best for us, should work best for dogs, and that’s not the case. If it was up to the dogs to pick food, I think it would be very different…by nature they would go for byproducts instead of chicken breasts, etc.

I admit I am the same and base a lot my behavior on what I perceive is true based on marketing…but it’s one thing to understand that and still prefer one product over another, versus blindly following it without any science based data. In the gym we call it “bro science” … I haven’t yet found the term to use for these situations.

I don't need any science behind a food to tell me that a dog's natural diet is also not corn, brewer's rice, soybean meal, caramel color, corn gluten, wheat gluten (all ingredients in Purina One). To companies like this, they spend so much on marketing that they make the food as cheap as possible to meet basic AAFCO standards.

Quote:

Do you remember your parent’s dogs or perhaps your grandparent’s dog that would live to 15 years old without issues while eating “bad” food? Have you looked up data on how long dogs lived in the last few decades compared to the recent ones?

Actually, kibble has not been around for that long (1950s I think). I have a book from the 1950s about being a good housewife (haha) and there's a section on dog ownership. Feeding guidelines list meat, vegetables, and other fresh, whole foods.

Personally, I think fresh food is best. But, I understand that not everyone has the time or other ability to feed it. In that case, kibble does exist that comes from freshly killed, hormone and antibiotic free, free-range animals, with limited other ingredients.

My vet told me that in vet school she had ONE nutrition class (luckily she has done her own research) - and in it they taught basically a calorie is a calorie, that it doesn't matter where it comes from as long as the food meets the nutritional needs for a dog. Well, I could go ahead and pour myself a bowl of Total cereal and meet my basic nutritional needs...but it's not going to keep me nearly as healthy other options for food. But, that's all that companies like Purina look at - the numbers.

05-06-2014 05:10 PM

s14roller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pax8

I know it was recalled for a while because of salmonella. Though that's more of a human concern than a dog one. I always wash my hands after handling dog food anyways, so I'm not concerned about that. I'm more interested in how other dogs have done on it. Not a fan of Pro Plan at all. I've heard it works for quite a few people, but I hate the ingredients in it and don't trust the company at all.

Your post is a little ironic when you talk about human concerns compared to dog concerns. I say this because we buy dog food thinking the same ingredients in there that work best for us, should work best for dogs, and that’s not the case. If it was up to the dogs to pick food, I think it would be very different…by nature they would go for byproducts instead of chicken breasts, etc.

I admit I am the same and base a lot my behavior on what I perceive is true based on marketing…but it’s one thing to understand that and still prefer one product over another, versus blindly following it without any science based data. In the gym we call it “bro science” … I haven’t yet found the term to use for these situations.

The one big thing that many people miss is companies like P&G, Mars, Purina, or whatever big name company you think of, has a legacy of their brand name to consider. They also typically have the R&D budget to properly do formulations and QA testing to assure their good name doesn’t get spoiled and they go from selling millions to zero because of trust. BTW – the Proplan company you don’t trust happened to also be the company that invested 14 years in a study involving scientists, PhDs, and UPenn Vet science professors to get data behind the life span differences between lean and overweight dogs. My guess is, that wasn’t cheap.

Do you remember your parent’s dogs or perhaps your grandparent’s dog that would live to 15 years old without issues while eating “bad” food? Have you looked up data on how long dogs lived in the last few decades compared to the recent ones?

Like I said, I fall for the same hype…I feed grain free, have spent years on Orijin/Acana foods, but I also remember the time Proplan Sensitive Skin & Stomach basically saved my pup when she would have liquid runs for months on all the other foods I fed her.

05-06-2014 03:58 PM

Pax8

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO

Do you trust Proctor and Gamble?

As of the beginning of April, Mars now owns Innova.....so no, good point. Though I have to say I think I would trust Mars slightly more than Purina if I had to choose.

I've been having a lot of clients asking me about the new Innova recipes since everything seems to have been switched up. The recipes look alright on paper, but I don't have any first hand experience with any dogs that are eating and doing well/badly on the food.

05-06-2014 03:36 PM

GSDAlphaMom

I used it years ago (6-7yrs) but switched when it was bought out and they changed the ingredients. It became more rice than anything. I haven't looked at it since so no idea if that is still the case.

05-06-2014 01:38 PM

I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pax8

I know it was recalled for a while because of salmonella. Though that's more of a human concern than a dog one. I always wash my hands after handling dog food anyways, so I'm not concerned about that. I'm more interested in how other dogs have done on it. Not a fan of Pro Plan at all. I've heard it works for quite a few people, but I hate the ingredients in it and don't trust the company at all.

Do you trust Proctor and Gamble?

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.